Says Joann Prinzivalli, who has male genitalia but would like to require the state of New York to amend her/his birth certificate to identify her/him as female. New York already complies with requests to amend birth certificates to change a person's sex if there has been "convertive surgery" on the genitals. If you think Prinzivalli's demands sound extreme, you should know that the transgender rights movement has already achieved successes that you may not have factored into the scheme of your traditional/antiquated thinking:

The US government and many US states, as well as the UK and Australia, have done away with the requirement for surgery to convert the genitals. That is partly in response to transgender activists who say the requirement was based on an obsolete understanding of sexual identity.

In 2011 the Transgender Law Center successfully pushed for passage of legislation ending surgery as a requirement to obtain a new birth certificate in California....

Under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, the UK does not require genital surgery before allowing individuals to obtain official recognition of their new gender.

And in 2010, the US State Department issued new guidelines requiring only "appropriate clinical treatment" to obtain a new passport or a birth certificate for US citizens born outside the country.

89 comments:

See what a can of worms one opens by making the threshold mistake of acknowledging that gender can be altered? This kind of, uh, hair splitting can only occur in jurisdictions that have buckled to the notion that one's gender is something one may amend.

“STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.REG: What?!LORETTA: It's my right as a man.JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?LORETTA: I want to have babies.REG: You want to have babies?!LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.REG: But... you can't have babies.LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!”

If you're antagonistic to the demand, you do need to think about the difficulties of a person trying to get around in life with an ID that doesn't seem to be their real ID. This person goes to vote, to get on an airplane, and it looks like the wrong ID. How will that be handled? What's important about imposing that on a person?

In 2011 the Transgender Law Center successfully pushed for passage of legislation ending surgery as a requirement to obtain a new birth certificate in California....

Please let me know if anyone is shocked about where this happened.

On the question of public bathrooms/locker rooms/showers, etc. Is a person who identifies with the sex opposite their plumbing (the person, not the aforementioned rooms) REQUIRED to act like the sex they identify with to avoid problems? IE, if a large, burly man identifies as a woman, operation or not, what if that man dresses in jeans and a t-shirt while using the facilities? Legally, I would think, there's no stipulation on behavior of which clothing would be included. But if you're a woman and you see this guy in the woman's shower in a school or gym, are you going to be placated if "he" waves a "corrected" birth certificate in your face?

(for the sake of the visual, let's assume "he" hasn't shaved in a few days as well)

Most, if not all, ID's only show the face. If that is a problem I suggest not wearing heavy make-up like Ru Paul or in drag when posing for the ID. It is nobody's business what your sexual orientation is. Most people falsify their weight anyway which is a bigger concern to first responders who make judgments based on the indicated weight.

Try holding a body bag in one hand and an ID in the other trying to ascertain lf everything is accounted for.

I think they should label the fields on the driver's license as "Preferred weight" and "Favorite hair color."

Not that this could ever be a factor that would keep any septuagenarian poll worker from preventing anyone who doesn't-look-like-you're-from-around-here from voting in Wisconsin. After all, voter ID solves all the problems that didn't previously exist.

If you'd like to expand your horizons in a safe and Pulitzer Prize-worthy fashion, read this.

The amusing thing, of course, is that the same PC types who claim that gender was infinitely malleable, and can be changed at any time, would react with horror to the suggestion that racial classification is infinitely malleable, and can be changed at any time.

Imagine if all the applicants to the University of Wisconsin got a clue, and claimed to be black on their applications.

Simple solution. We need to finally come to terms with the fact that gender is not biological. There are many cultures in the world that in fact have 3 different gender, or allow one sex to assume the role of another gender.

We just need to add an additional box to the form. Sex, is the biological designation. There will be an additional gender box. How many different designations, for the gender box is open to discussion.

Should we have a third, orientation box, or would the gender box cover gay, bisexual and asexual?

Isn't the point of a birth certificate to certify what occurred at birth? I mean, I can live life as if I were 21, dress like a college student, get plastic surgery to look younger, ignore any calls to act my actual age, etc., but I can't change my birth certificate to say that I was born in 1991, can I?

I guess if you want to add some sort of addendum that says as of X date, now identifies as male/female for the purposes of identification, but it would be ridiculous and dishonest to try to go back in time and say that the baby was something different upon birth.

Herbert Marcuse and all those Frankfurt School adherents of cultural marxism would be quite pleased. Why do I have to be identified as a man just because I have got a cock? It's such an outdated repressive societal construct.

We're one step closer to dismantling the repressive reality imposed on us by 2000 years of Christianity and Western cultural norms and mores.

can I declare my M self dead and collect my SS survivor's benefits? The husband does not receive the survivors benefits? here the husband receive then , and has been that way since 1968.And in Germany since 1976

So, if i truly believe that I am a person and live at "Joann"'s address...how could they argue I don't live there if they were intellectually consistent? If gender is just a societal construct, why isn't my name or property?

Also, what if I'm a deadbeat dad and to avoid paying child support, I make myself a woman. Since two women cannot biologically create a child, that would get me off the hook.

Local jails here segregate trannie prisoners, because they'd be held liable if something happened to "her" in a male lockup. If he identifies as a her, and the situation has the possibility of promising trouble, she is separated from the general population in a single cell.

LOL. If you think this decision was made for any other reason than liability or to stem any potential trouble before it starts, I've got some slightly soggy real estate in Florida I would love to sell you.

The last two municipalities (one large, one small) that I have lived in did the exact same thing and in both cases it was to prevent potential problems, not to protect the rights of some wilting flower.

It's not hardware, and it can't be gender stereotypes anymore. So, what is this 'manhood' or 'womanhood' that people assume they are, if there is no objective definition of what those things are?

It feels like saying I feel like I'm red, when 'red' no longer is allowed to reflect a particular shade in the color spectrum. I feel like "red" can mean, to me, I'm yellow, or green, or black, or blue, but we don't know what I internally mean because none of those words would have meaning either.

Again. LOL @ "her". The cops see a problem and the easiest solution is segregation. The would do the same with a "violent" prisoner. It is not a recognition of "her" as a "she". It's identifying a potential problem they are going to have that they would rather not confront.

It's a slippery slope indeed, but why do some people get to have rhetoro-influence while others are dismissed?

Of course there is science behind it. There's science behind most anything. Including the topics mentioned that have been dismissed?

Why should age, for instance, be determined by years since born, rather than physical development?

Bringing in the old racial categories doesn't work here, because race is not the same biological category as gender. Indeed, racial categories still do exist because these are still questions being asked that determines participation in different arenas. I can't, for instance, apply to scholarships for Asians or African Americans. That's a decisive loss of potential financial aid for me. But, if I feel like I am a woman I can apply for grants made for women?

And what, again, does gender even mean in such contexts. There's only "I feel like a man" but what does that mean if it's neither parts, nor roles, nor any other category?

It's it a randomized indicator? I can say I'm 7' tall, but others can measure me and say I'm not. Why does gender alone get a unique category of individual determination?

That's why these aren't slippery slope responses, nor irrational. They are inconvenient to people who don't want to deal with the more substantive issues involved, which involves our shared use and understanding of language, which is the foundation of civilization.

There is no recognition other than the spotting of a potential problem and your example is unique to a jail cell, in which most of those involved are there because there was a problem somewhere else, not because they're decent, law-abiding people just going about their lives.

Pogo and Scott nailed it. The problem is the modernist conceit that you get to define what you are—that you can customize every element of your world and no one can object. You are the arbiter of your race and gender; you write your own wedding vows; you get to decide if you're disabled; etc. etc. And the criterion by which you decide? How you "feel." Well, it isn't and you can't. If the state should take any recognition of body dysmorphic disorder, it's to prosecute cosmetic surgeons who prey on its victims, to get help for its victims not to enable and encourage them.

Well, I would certainly hope that hospitals are not sending in a gyn to check out someone's penis or attempting prostate exams on people who don't have prostates. If a man feels like a woman, is s/he at lower risk for heart problems (as women are)? Doubtful.

Be amazing to see what might happen if "the transgender rights movement" didn't bloc vote.

Ann Althouse said...

If you're antagonistic to the demand, you do need to think about the difficulties of a person trying to get around in life with an ID that doesn't seem to be their real ID. This person goes to vote, to get on an airplane, and it looks like the wrong ID. How will that be handled? What's important about imposing that on a person?

It was still born male. I don't doubt for a second that a valid ID could be procured, something from the state witnessed by the surgeon, to state it had switched sides, as it were.

Patty O said: And what, again, does gender even mean in such contexts. There's only "I feel like a man" but what does that mean if it's neither parts, nor roles, nor any other category?

To claim some non-part/genetic related sex has always seemed to me to deny the fact that roles have changed drastically. I (and Althouse) work at a job that, a few generations ago, was strictly limited to men.

Does that make us male? If we were to go back in time, and say that we feel like lawyers, does tht mean that we feel like men? Of course not, we're women who act individually in the roles that suit us, sometimes traditionally female (i.e., marrying males), sometimes traditionally male (i.e. outearning said male spouses).

How about we just live our lives the way we want, and stop demanding that others lie about clear biological facts?

But isn't the point here, she hasn't had the surgery, and yet still "switched sides" and presents as female?

Let's look at it practically. Assume a man decides he wants to identify as a woman and society bends over backwards (no pun...well maybe a little) to accommodate that with ID's, revised birth certificates, sensitivity seminars for his fellow workers and managers, etc. Then, a couple years go buy and "she" regrets the decision, has never gotten surgery, and decides to go back to being Tom. Once again, society would have to bend over backwards to accommodate.

Should society continue getting bent over simply on the official whim of Tom, or should there be a no-backsies rule?

No. Legally he changed his name. The jailers, and captain I talked to, referred to the segregated prisoner as "April" and the pronouns were female. Their call -- again, maybe to set a tone with other inmmates, maybe to keep things simple for jailers.

We're talking about two different instances then. I'm talking about incidents that happened in St Louis and Marion IL.

Not at all. Answer the question. How often can a person change their gender identification without getting an operation and expect society to accept it in terms of legality and everything that involves?

You either are avoiding the question, Mary, or you're not understanding.

If society must accommodate, legally, with ID's/documents, etc a non-op tranny, should society be forced to change everything if that person decides they're done and want to revert back? How many times should it be allowed per person?

A number of years ago, Joann/Paul declared that she/he would henceforth be a lesbian. I complimented her/him at the time on the LoHud forum for this terrific strategy. There are same damn fine lezzies out there I can't get near, but Joann/Paul has figured out how he can get the otherwise unobtainable girl and keep his junk too.

.....plus be celebrated as a member of a victim class for bonus points.

The country is in severe economic trouble and this is the pressing problem of the day?

Just because some freak wants to believe what everyone else's tells them they aren't is a sufficiently valid reason to accommodate nonsense. Hey, I just had an wakening, I'm a black elderly handicapped lesbian. Now where do I apply for my bennies? I'm entitled and who are you to say I'm not what I believe myself to be?

Mary said..."You work in a theoretic field, with few pragmatic consequences and thus have that luxury. Public workers really don't."

We're not talking about public workers, we're talking about public policy. Public policy should not recognize the claims of people who wish to "switch gender," except for simple error correction, as in cases where someone is genetically and anatomically of one gender but their birth certificate shows the other. If public workers are in a bad spot, it's only because the policy is wrong.

There is no such thing as a "transgender" person—there are only deeply disturbed individuals and the question of how the state reacts. Does it enable the victims, thus allowing them to deepen their wounds, or does it prosecute the "doctors" who do grievous psychological and physical harm to these desperately ill people instead of helping them.

Mary said..."Like the Catholic pharmacists required to fill contraceptive prescriptions, they don't have to 'believe in it with all their hearts.' But they do have to do their jobs, and follow the policies the local people in authorities set."

Yes, and they should not be required to do that. That requirement is deeply problematic and shouldn't exist. Now, that said, I have in mind pharmacists not employees; I don't think that Catholic employees should enjoy any legal privelege to not be fired for refusing to fill a prescription that the pharmacist wishes to fill, but the pharmacist should not be obligated by the state.

Mary said..."How many times should it be allowed per person? As many times as a person is permitted to divorce and remarry."

That analogy right there—The assumption that marriage is a temporary station to be taken up, put down, or swapped at whim—is indicative of exactly the kind of "have it your way" culture that fostered this insanity.

Mary said..."This is why you have the luxury of closing your eyes and wishing these complex issues away. Were you in charge at our local county jail, taxpayers would be on the hook for dead, or injured, inmmates potentially. Now you'll say: in theory, the individual, trans or not, should be protected by the State. Regardless of mental illness or how they provoke others by their appearance or attitude."

As you anticipate, the answer is that the individual, trans or not, should be protected by the State while in the custody of the state. Detention is a fundamentally different face than the one which the state presents to the individual at liberty. That said, it is merely an assumption that the jail captain must "recognize the trans inmate, and segregate [']her['], to prevent potential violence." It is not the action of the jailer that places her ward in danger, but his own actions.

"Re. 'but the pharmacist should not be obligated by the state.' No, but if her employer is smart, and efficent with money, they can fire her for refusing to do her job. And again, the people in local power set the policies in reality."

I specifically preempted that point in my previous comment. Try again.

"Pragmatism. Acceptance of reality."

Right. Realities like "men and women." Funny how you want to finesse those.

"You're fighting to turn back the clock. It is what it is legally, Simon. Whether we like it or not."

No, Mary, it is not, and one's marital situation will ultimately be judged by a higher court than any that exists in this land. But regardless of its legal status, my observation arises from your cavalier attitude, not the legalities.

"Which came first, I ask you? The chicken or the egg?"

That is the kind of question that could only flummox an atheist. Small minds are easy to ruffle.

Mary said..."I think legally recognizing pre-op trannies as being of their presented gender would go a long way toward ending surgical genital mutilation."

To the contrary, I think it would feed the psychosis by creating the impression that the state recognizes their delusion as valid.

"under what rules would you prosecute doctors for performing these consentual surgeries?"

"Carry out or attempt to carry out gender reassignment surgery, go to jail for ten years" seems like a good starting point. We can get into psychologists and other minutiae later.

"Doesn't Roe pretty much protect doctor/patient choices?"

I do not accept Roe v. Wade as good law, and so, if prosecuting doctors was irreconcilable with Roe-Casey, I would argue that it's the latte that must give way. For better or worse, though, that strikes me as a very, very overbroad reading of Roe.

You traditionalists don't recognize divorced marraiges as legally "real", correct? Nor do you recognize the offspring of such "second families" (or 3rd or 4th) as being legitimate offspring of a legal relationship, correct?

Even from the likes of Garage, Cook, and Alpha, I have never seen a more inaccurate worldview on parade. The mind, it boggles.

You've officially jumped the shark as far as I'm concerned, Mary. I hope you and Fonzi do well together because I'm through with you. There's simply no getting through layers of gunk that thick.

I don't think that Catholic employees should enjoy any legal privelege to not be fired for refusing to fill a prescription that the pharmacist wishes to fill, but the pharmacist should not be obligated by the state.

You do realize that the vast majority of pharmacists are also employees. Are you seriously arguing that a pharmacist employed by Walgreen's can be fired for refusing to fill a prescription but an independent pharmacist should be free what medicines are medically necessary (generally, that is considered the purview of doctors, not pharmacists).

To the contrary, I think it would feed the psychosis by creating the impression that the state recognizes their delusion as valid.

Does it enable the victims, thus allowing them to deepen their wounds, or does it prosecute the "doctors" who do grievous psychological and physical harm to these desperately ill people instead of helping them.

Not only does Simon fancy himself a lawyer, but now he is a psychiatrist as well. He also thinks transgendered person can be cured. I bet he thinks the same thing about homosexuals.

The ACTUAL sciences --- with ACTUAL scientists involved --- have that whole "XY or XX" chromosome thing and the whole "what genitals do they have?" thing to fall back on.

Which, mind you, is actual science and pretty concrete.

Interviews with odd people who want to play dress up isn't science.

Feel free to cite the sociological studies backing up your point --- but also please mention to me why I should start taking sociology seriously at this late point in the game.

If we crippled ourselves from addressing reality, as Simon advocates, simply because we feared what MIGHT become, we'd never progress socially or scientifically.

Let's play that game. Idiotic social experiments failed spectacularly and people now have to deal with the mess earlier do-gooders swore would NEVER happen.

You think rapists won't use this nonsense to give themselves easier access to women? Are you really THAT naive? Or child molesters getting easier access to little girls?

Live in the real world.

Do you ever sit back and wonder what your beliefs will ultimately lead to?

Recognizing transgenders is much less costly in terms of volume and time than recognizing divorced relationships. Why don't you and Simon spend your time more pragmatically in saving society, and push to reverse liberal divorce laws, instead of fighting the trans issue?

Because you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Meanwhile, you can pretend that when Lou wears pumps and a dress that he is IDENTICAL to you --- and, hey, if you want to demean yourself like that, I'm loathe to disagree --- but why should we sit back and applaud more bad policies when we already have so many OTHER bad policies that do-gooders have already saddled us with.

Seriously, what did I say? Just because the law recognizes divorces, do all traditionalist Catholics? Doesn't that go against their core beliefs?

So, your argument that I should oppose all divorce claims is because Catholics don't believe them?

If I'm not a Catholic, though?

Is that the problem with the law legally recognizing gay marraige, or transgenders? That once it does, then traditionist thinking has to accommodate such matters, and alter their core beliefs too?

Shocking, given then I have no beef if gay marriage is passed via vote.

If a court dictates it, then I cannot support it.

It's not a rights issue nor is it about equality.

And if you are pragmatic, you undertand that this person's core beliefs about themselves, and how they express that, are unlikely to change once they are imprisoned.

So protect the Aryan from the prisoners of any other race? What if some Aryans don't get along? Do you not recognize how idiotic this entire premise is?

If I hadn't told you the answer ahead of time, I wonder whether you would think inmate April was a "man" or "woman". (Penalties for guessing wrong!)

If I name my son Susan --- he's still a male. Hate to break it to you.

I want to meet these men Mary swears could pass for women. I've seen plenty of attempts at it and none come close. Men cannot pull off looking like women. Politeness is why people don't laugh at their attempts.

Mary said..."So -- put on your captain/jailer hat now, and tell me: do you have an obligation to protect all your inmmates (the trannie, and those housed with her) from the potential violent effects of treating them equally as "men"? Use the example I was given: do you put an alligator into the general population and then just express naive astonishment when one gets hurt?"

I would put male prisoners with male prisoners and female prisoners with female prisoners, and I would have the prison in sufficient order that no one was in physical danger. If I was not allowed the resources necessary to accomplish that goal, I would not take the job.

"If I hadn't told you the answer ahead of time, I wonder whether you would think inmate April was a 'man' or 'woman'. (Penalties for guessing wrong!)"

I have no idea who "April" is.

"Clearly you didn't communicate effectively."

I communicated perfectly clearly: The "requirement [that pharmacists dispense drugs without regard to their conscience] is deeply problematic and shouldn't exist. Now, that said, I have in mind pharmacists not employees; I don't think that Catholic employees should enjoy any legal privelege to not be fired for refusing to fill a prescription that the pharmacist wishes to fill, but the pharmacist should not be obligated by the state." Obviously if one understands the pharmacist as the employer, it makes no sense to say "if her employer is smart … they can fire her for refusing to do her job."

"You're a newbie American, Simon, and it shows. The Constitution, Bill of Rights and legal precedent (think Roe) would prevent such extreme action being taken against lawfully recognized U.S. citizens."

You are very mistaken if you think me ignorant of basic civics. There is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, nor even in Roe, that preempts the enforcement of a statute regulating medical behavior. Think about the consequences of that notion. Do you think that a statute banning FGM and attaching legal penalties would be unconstitutional? Do you think that a pharmacist cannot be dealt with if he gives out drugs without a prescription? Federalism issues aside, government is perfectly competent to regulate the medical field and rule certain procedures "in" and "out"—abortion is an exception, not the rule.

Freder Frederson said..."You do realize that the vast majority of pharmacists are also employees. Are you seriously arguing that a pharmacist employed by Walgreen's can be fired for refusing to fill a prescription but an independent pharmacist should be free what medicines are medically necessary (generally, that is considered the purview of doctors, not pharmacists)."

Yes. Are you seriously contending that the purely volitional relationship between employee and employer is indistinct from a general legal obligation imposed by the state? In this regard, the government doesn't have to protect one private actor from another (employees from employers), it should simply refrain from putting civil obligations on private actors.

The ACTUAL sciences --- with ACTUAL scientists involved --- have that whole "XY or XX" chromosome thing and the whole "what genitals do they have?" thing to fall back on.

Actually, determination of sex is not that simple. XX and XY is the norm for the vast majority of humans, but there are other combinations of chromosomes and true hemaphrodites do indeed exist. Of course in your and Simon's simple world, such complications do not exist.

Actually, determination of sex is not that simple. XX and XY is the norm for the vast majority of humans, but there are other combinations of chromosomes and true hemaphrodites do indeed exist. Of course in your and Simon's simple world, such complications do not exist.

An incidence that occurs in a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of one percent of the population is not actually able to disprove anything.

I won't quote Mary since they'll be yanked off since she is an idiot --- but given that I specifically mentioned hermaphrodism. But given that there are about 400 cases in the world and NOTHING is 100%, 99.99% is pretty solid.

I anxiously await the removal of her nonsense. It's hard to imagine a bigger moron than Freder on the board --- but, hey, there he is.

I recognize it is sexist to assume Mary is a woman. It could be a hideous man who wants to play dress up.

damikesc quoted...Actually, determination of sex is not that simple. XX and XY is the norm for the vast majority of humans, but there are other combinations of chromosomes and true hemaphrodites do indeed exist. Of course in your and Simon's simple world, such complications do not exist.

Not an expert but it seems that true human hermaphoridites can be distinguished and designated as such by karyotype. Stigmatization is a whole different story.

But here we're simply talking about designating XX as XY or vice versa. It's just falsification of data.

If you're antagonistic to the demand, you do need to think about the difficulties of a person trying to get around in life with an ID that doesn't seem to be their real ID. This person goes to vote, to get on an airplane, and it looks like the wrong ID. How will that be handled? What's important about imposing that on a person?

You should show up for the ID picture made up the way you normally make yourself up. So if you are a man who wears full makeup and a wig, you need to have your ID picture taken wearing the same. That should eliminate the confusion.

As for the birth certificate, one does not use that on a routine basis. Obviously if anything about you seems at odds with your birth certificate, you may be subject to some greater scrutiny from a clerk, but such is life.

Ann, in 1965, the prevailing medical opinion was that trans people were delusional individuals properly assigned to the original sex, for whom any treatment was merely "palliative." Between 1995 and the present, there have been numerous scientific medical studies that have established that trans people are genetically and developmentally different than persons assigned to the original sex, and genetic predispositions for this sort of development have been found. Over at my blog, I cite to these studies as an attachment to my June 2011 letter to Dean Skelos. See: